Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

I've run some preliminary numbers on the 'blended' XM-8. At 45 tonnes you get:

  • 145mm aluminium + 500mm NERA @ 45’ (upper hull front): estimated 670mm/970mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 70mm aluminium @ + 250mm NERA 45’ (lower hull front): estimated 330mm/480mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 65mm aluminium + 250mm NERA (hull side forward): estimated 160mm/230mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 25mm aluminium (hull side rear)
  • 25mm aluminium (hull rear)
  • 25mm aluminium (hull roof)
  • 25mm aluminium (hull floor)
  • 175mm aluminium + 500mm NERA @ 30’ (turret front): estimated 560mm/810mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 65mm aluminium + 250mm NERA (turret side forward): estimated 240mm/350mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 65mm aluminium + 250mm NERA (turret side rear): estimated 240mm/350mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 25mm aluminium (turret rear)
  • 200mm aluminium + 500mm NERA (mantlet): estimated 470mm/720mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 35mm aluminium + 65mm NERA @ 80’ (turret roof forward): estimated 310mm/410mm LoS KE/chem protection
  • 25mm aluminium (turret roof rear)

Result: XM-8E1 is going to have to be a thing.

 

 

LOL, suddenly NERA!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition!      In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, w

Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)   The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States

Best oscillating turret...

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

OK, be honest, did you start adding NERA just out of coincidence or because I put NERA on the Roach submission? XD

I left giant air spaces in my previous hull designs for a reason, son.

 

This isn't going to be for the "present day" version of the design though. Because NERA is unnecessary when your enemies are using AP, APCR and 1st-gen HEAT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I left giant air spaces in my previous hull designs for a reason, son.

 

This isn't going to be for the "present day" version of the design though. Because NERA is unnecessary when your enemies are using AP, APCR and 1st-gen HEAT.

 

I just noticed there wasn't any NERA on your M8 submission, is all. Wondered if I caused an "oh shit" moment. I kinda figured everybody would have a bag of tricks they would start throwing out there towards the end of the competition, and NERA is one of the more obvious ones.

Yeah, same for the Roach. "Canonically" it doesn't get NERA until the A5 version, which is from the late 2260s. But it's more for cost and necessity (as in, there is none) reasons than anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 12:18 PM, Toxn said:

So here is what we have so far:

o6i2bZR.jpg

The suspension is supposed to get replaced at some point (with external torsion bars), and the rear hull needs reworking.

Plans to make the hull lower, shorter and thinner failed: I ended up using up all the freed space by putting in those crazy modular armour compartments and ended up haing to make the whole thing longer and taller to fit the driver's vision devices in (the poor bastard still has to enter/exit via the turret or the bottom escape hatch) once I'd lengthened the turret. The turret is currently missing the mantlet and coax.

 

The gun is a smooth-bore 120mm/L35 piece which is limited (for now) to firing modified mortar shells at lower velocities (~600 m/s) ala the 8cm PAW 600. The HEAT shell should be able to do ~240mm of penetration even with crappy WW2-era HEAT designs thanks to the lack of spin. The turret actually has 4 crew members crammed into it - one to act as a dedicated rangefinder operator. I have no idea what the elevation/depression on the gun is, but I plan to mess with the turret until it's -10/+30. The gun is massively overbuilt for what it's currently doing, and should be capable of slinging proper HEAT-FS and APFSDS whenever that comes online. The casing for the shell is about 850mm long, so there's lot's of room to play with.

 

The weight without anything in the armour compartments is about 25t, with all the suspension/transmission components rated for 45t. The armour compartments are designed to cover up to the rear of the turret ring in a 45' arc and attacks directly to the side of the crew compartment. The base armour is pretty much nothing (20mm, 500mm air gap and 10mm front plate) but will keep HMGs and early HEAT rockets out. When fully loaded up with modern NERA, however, this thing should be able to keep modern HEAT weapons and previous-gen APFSDS at bay.

@Sturgeon observe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I just noticed there wasn't any NERA on your M8 submission, is all. Wondered if I caused an "oh shit" moment. I kinda figured everybody would have a bag of tricks they would start throwing out there towards the end of the competition, and NERA is one of the more obvious ones.

Yeah, same for the Roach. "Canonically" it doesn't get NERA until the A5 version, which is from the late 2260s. But it's more for cost and necessity (as in, there is none) reasons than anything else.

As I said, NERA and ERA just don't add that much value until second-gen HEAT and APFSDS come along. Until then I think you're still better off with monolithic armour and normal spaced armour for protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

No worries.

 

The XM-16 ideas got worked back into the XM-8 before being mostly eliminated in favour of my steel version/aluminium version concept.

 

I actually have no idea how much protection my NERA arrays would offer. They are a little smaller than yours in some areas but backed by more steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I actually have no idea how much protection my NERA arrays would offer. They are a little smaller than yours in some areas but backed by more steel.

The figures I've been using are a TE of around 0.7 against KE and 1.15 againt HEAT. I have no idea how accurate this is.

 

Edit: that's for chobham-esque NERA, mind. Burlington is more like 0.4/0.9 iirc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Out of curiosity, wouldn't the spaced armor on the hull cause APC rounds that do not shatter to have increased penetration? 

I'm not sure how that would work, but my understanding is that spaced armour wouldn't be that effective against solid shot simply because thinner plates of a given hardness/composition etc tend to be less effective than thicker ones where lower-velocity solid projectiles are concerned.

 

So the plates would do some good ITO decapping, setting off fuses and so on. But they'd be less mass efficient against AP then simply increasing the base armour by an equivalent amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Toxn said:

APCR, on the other hand...

 

Yep, historical APCR got wrecked by spaced armor.

 

On 9/9/2018 at 4:34 PM, Collimatrix said:

The TL:DR of this 1950s report on spaced armor and other sources I've read is:

 

 

APCR: Totally fucked by even small stand-off plates parallel to the main armor in hasty add-on packages.  Most APCR projectiles had too brittle a core to deal with anything but homogenous armor.

HEAT:  Early HEAT was adversely affected by spaced armor, but by early 1950s level of HEAT projectile optimization it almost ignored it, or even got a slight penetration boost vs spaced armor.  Arrays of many thin plates were modestly more effective vs. HEAT.

APDS:  Adversely affected by spaced armor, but far less than APCR thanks to sheathe designs that protected the core from shattering.

APFSDS:  Early APFSDS was fucked by spaced armor quite badly, but metallurgical improvements meant that later rounds largely ignored it.

APCBC:  Effects heavily dependent on the optimization of the spaced armor array and quality of the rounds.  Well-constructed APCBC is actually more effective against simple spaced armor arrays than against homogeneous plate.  Poorly constructed APCBC suffers against simple stand-off plates almost to the extent that APCR does.  Geometrically well-optimized arrays are moderately more effective on a weight basis against APCBC than homogeneous plate.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toxn said:

I'm not sure how that would work, but my understanding is that spaced armour wouldn't be that effective against solid shot simply because thinner plates of a given hardness/composition etc tend to be less effective than thicker ones where lower-velocity solid projectiles are concerned.

 

So the plates would do some good ITO decapping, setting off fuses and so on. But they'd be less mass efficient against AP then simply increasing the base armour by an equivalent amount.

Having the plates parallel to each other causes a slight yawing in the projectile into the plate, effectively reducing the sloping of the main plate.  This is why they found reverse sloped spaced armor to be the most effective, it is however, not very space efficient (see my prototype frontal armor. 

 

A side question to the OP, what type of projectile does the enemies of the Cascadia use? Mainly APCR like Cascaida? 

 

 

Also, aluminum/steel spaced armor:
cWz5Ich.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep forgetting just how tiny the Cascade Republic is ITO population. For reference; we're talking about a state which, if at its 1940's population level, would be half the size of 1940s Switzerland. If at 1990's levels, then we're looking at a population a quarter of that of 1940s Italy.

 

I think the total tank park is going to be on the order of 100-1000 vehicles.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toxn said:

I keep forgetting just how tiny the Cascade Republic is ITO population. For reference; we're talking about a state which, if at its 1940's population level, would be half the size of 1940s Switzerland. If at 1990's levels, then we're looking at a population a quarter of that of 1940s Italy.

 

I think the total tank park is going to be on the order of 100-1000 vehicles.

 

 

 

CR has 4.5 mil people, which is a bit bigger than 1940s Switzerland. Yes, I don't expect them to have too many tanks (California will have more) - which is why I think having superior tanks is such a priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

CR has 4.5 mil people, which is a bit bigger than 1940s Switzerland. Yes, I don't expect them to have too many tanks (California will have more) - which is why I think having superior tanks is such a priority.

I agree - my estimates put the Californians at something like 7-8 million strong, so you're pretty much stuck with a defensive war there and hoping to inflict disproportionate casualties.

 

The largest tank battles are going to look those in Indo-Pakistan '65: maybe 300 vehicles all told. Most battles will be much smaller, perhaps a few dozen vehicles.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I agree - my estimates put the Californians at something like 7-8 million strong, so you're pretty much stuck with a defensive war there and hoping to inflict disproportionate casualties.

 

The largest tank battles are going to look those in Indo-Pakistan '65: maybe 300 vehicles all told. Most battles will be much smaller, perhaps a few dozen vehicles.

 

 

Sounds about right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2018 at 7:53 PM, Lord_James said:

I upgraded my Shot mk-1 to Shot mk-2... I now need to make a new gun, but still: 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

KHSIVIM.png

SgBqgOS.png

GJwk1eR.png

 

18.11kg complete shell, 800mm total length, and now has a 130mm bottle shape. 

New propellant mass: 5.25kg 

New velocity: 1207 m/s out the barrel (with 50 caliber barrel). 

projectile is the same as before (5.84kg complete, 275mm length, 50x200mm tungsten carbide slug) 

 

I'm getting penetration values that I believe are a little high (173mm @ 2000m @ 0o), but then again my shell is going hella fast, so IDK. 

 

After doing some research, and some better math, I found different numbers for my shell’s penetration. Using this formula: 

 

image.png.6d7d07faea68bbd268fb63585ffb6a

 

E= energy of projectile 

 

A= armor resistance factor (1960 for tungsten carbide against 240bhn armor steel) 

 

D= Diameter of penetrator (in decimeters) 

 

S= armor thickness 

 

 

And solved for S, you get an equation that will give you a penetration figure for your shell that’s close to RL (I tested 90mm M304 and 76mm M93 and came out to 322mm (12.68 inches) and 235mm (9.25 inches) at PB, respectively). Using this and the data I got from JBM and the load calculator for my projectile, I am now getting numbers that look like: 

 

point blank: 

447mm @ 0* 

335mm @ 30* 

 

2000m: 

232mm @ 0* 

174mm @ 30* 

 

 

I am now pondering how I made a weapon so poweful by mistake, but then again my shell is over 1kg heavier, and moving about 200m/s faster, that M304, so I guess it makes sense that my shell would penetrate more armor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
       
      However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
       
      In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
       
      Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
       
      It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
       
      The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
       
      Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
       
      The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
      Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
      The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
      15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
      3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
      Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
       
      Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
       
      Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
      If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.

×
×
  • Create New...